Mediaboss Marketing

If you like this post,sign up to get The Nuance newsletter delivered straight to your inbox every Sunday night!

One of the First Amendments bedrock protections for a free press and free expression is the rule that an individual lawfully exercising their constitutional rights cant be held liable for a strangers uncoordinated decision to break the law nearby. As weve often emphasized, that rule is a critical safeguard for reporters who attend tumultuous events where violence may break out political rallies, say, or mass demonstrations in order to bring the public the news. But a recent order of the U.S. Supreme Court gives reason for concern that that longstanding First Amendment principle may no longer have five votes among the justices.

The case, Mckesson v. Doe, has come before the justices before. In it, a Louisiana law enforcement officer alleges that he was struck by a rock while policing a Black Lives Matter demonstration but rather than sue the individual who threw the rock, the officer chose to sue activist DeRay Mckesson for organizing the protest in the first place. Under the Courts 1982 decision in NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware, that should have made for an easy case: Before you can be held liable for another persons decision to break the law at a demonstration, the First Amendment requires proof that you authorized, directed, or ratified the strangers violent conduct. By insisting on that evidence of bad intent, the Constitution provides breathing room for lawful newsgathering and expression, ensuring that journalists can go about their jobs at chaotic events without fear that a third-partys unlawful conduct will be imputed to them.

Remarkably, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit allowed Does lawsuit to go forward regardless even though Doe never alleged that Mckesson intended his injury on the theory that Mckesson was negligent as to the risk that the protest would turn violent. (As the Reporters Committees Gabe Rottman wrote in a 2018 op-ed for The Washington Post, a similar theory was put to dangerous but ultimately unsuccessful use against journalists in connection with protests against Donald Trumps presidential inauguration in 2017). In 2020, in response to a previous bid by Mckesson to have the Supreme Court hear the case, the justices issued an unsigned order that ordered the Fifth Circuit to ask the Louisiana Supreme Court to clarify whether state tort law permitted Does lawsuit before wading into a question fraught with implications for First Amendment rights. But when the Louisiana Supreme Court answered that state law did, in fact, provide Doe with the grist for a lawsuit, the Fifth Circuit reinstated its conclusion that the First Amendment offered no defense.

Mckesson then turned to the Supreme Court again. The justices weighed the case at seven (!) conferences before weighing in often a sign that some sort of behind-the-scenes haggling is afoot. Last week, the Court ultimately declined to review the case, accompanied by a short statement from Justice Sonia Sotomayor. In carefully neutral language, Sotomayor noted that the Fifth Circuits opinion did not have the benefit of the Courts 2023 decision in Counterman v. Colorado, which reiterated the role that strict intent requirements play in providing breathing room for First Amendment freedom. Mckesson, she suggested, would still have an opportunity to argue to the Fifth Circuit that it should now revisit its earlier decision in light of Counterman.

There may be, then, a narrow path forward for Mckesson. But its an unnerving development all the same that the Court couldnt assemble a majority to reverse the Fifth Circuit outright the outcome Sotomayor may well have spent those weeks trying to build support for. At a time when the prospect of significant protest activity once again ratchets up the legal risk facing journalists who cover civic unrest, the Court cant afford to blink on core First Amendment protections.

The Technology and Press Freedom Project at the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press uses integrated advocacy combining the law, policy analysis, and public education to defend and promote press rights on issues at the intersection of technology and press freedom, such as reporter-source confidentiality protections, electronic surveillance law and policy, and content regulation online and in other media. TPFP is directed by Reporters Committee attorney Gabe Rottman. He works with RCFP Staff Attorney Grayson Clary and Technology and Press Freedom Project Fellow Emily Hockett.

Read the rest here:
SCOTUS won't review decision that ratchets up legal risk at protests - Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press

Lily Bodin

Students do not shed their rights at the schoolhouse gates.

At least, thats the standard upholding freedom of speech and expression in U.S. public schools. The Supreme Court established the precedent in the 1969 case Tinker v. Des Moines. The case extended the rights of the First Amendment to students in schools because the school administrators acted as a proxy for the U.S. government. It has been upheld ever since.

Students attending state-funded high schools across the country have Tinker and decades more of constitutional interpretation to fall back on when they express themselves. Administrators have a wealth of knowledge to rely upon when they discipline students. This even extends to public universities.

Unfortunately for students that attend private colleges, an already complex legal topic becomes even more blurry. Officials of private universities arent held to the same standards because they arent agents of the government. Private universities typically write and enforce their own speech codes.

Elite private universities sell themselves as intellectual powerhouses, but they still struggle with the foundational concept behind intellectual thought: freedom of expression. Private universities have been under fire since the Oct. 7 attack on Israel for the chaos on their campuses. The situation is sticky. Its so sticky that the presidents of three of our nations finest institutions Harvard University, University of Pennsylvania and Massachusetts Institute of Technology found themselves tongue-tied before Congress when questioned about how they are handling tense on-campus situations. The line between harassment and expression is unclear, even to the most esteemed academics.

Tulane University has a clear commitment to the freedom of expression outlined in its 2023 philosophy. However, as the congressional hearings of university presidents showed, institutional policy may not be enough to root out bias.

Tulane is not immune to the fallacies of other private institutions and is also being tested on its free speech boundaries. Tulane has shown up in the news again and again with freedom of speech at the center of the story. Systems of legal interpretation and justice shield public universities from the conflict. The difference between the marketplace of ideas in public and private universities lies in the methods of recourse available to students and staff alike.

Public universities are expected to uphold the First Amendment, as defined by the Constitution and interpreted for centuries by the courts, when they commit to free speech. Thus, when a public institution engages in questionable discipline of students concerning expression, their students can turn to the courts for restitution. Private universities, like Tulane, Harvard and Penn, are expected only to keep their promises to students. Administrations are capable of interpreting violations of their own rules, regardless of the impression on community members or any perceived discrepancies between academic integrity and the safety of the campus environment. Thats a much harder case for a censored student to win.

The standard set forth in Tinker v. Des Moines established that students retain their rights at public schools, but it didnt shoot down all administrative authority to regulate speech. Public school students are still disciplined for speech that materially and substantially interferes with school operation. Student speech would otherwise be protected unless the instance escalates, legally, to that of harassment or a hate crime.

By voluntarily deciding to uphold the First Amendment, Tulane administrators would be moving to embrace decades of evaluative standards set forth by U.S. courts. This, rather than a self-defined philosophy for freedom of expression, would have benefits for both the community and the administration. Students would have a clearer picture of what will be allowed and disallowed. Administrators would have a path for discipline that puts up extra guardrails against biased decisions. Grievances can be brought to court if a decision appears biased. The community would be more educated on their civil rights overall.

Now more than ever, it is critical for young intellectuals to engage in civil discourse. Speech and conduct codes are subject to bias and manipulation during a time so charged for our community. The Constitution and its interpretation are imperfect, but something must be done in order to protect the core values of education throughout the chaos. Bias in free speech interpretation impedes free academic thought. A reformed free speech policy is the first step forward.

See the original post:
OPINION | Tulane must commit to upholding First Amendment - Tulane Hullabaloo

On April 10, Parsons Behle & Latimer (Parsons) attorney Michael Judd participated as a panel member for one of a series of First Amendment Society events, hosted by the Salt Lake Tribune. Judd, who specializes in media and First Amendment law, was invited by the Salt Lake Tribune to be a panelist. Over the years, Judd has donated substantial time and effort to the Tribune as pro bono counsel as have Parsons' attorneys Michael Patrick O'Brien and Elena T. Vetter.

Conversation at the First Amendment Society event focused on press freedoms, access to public records and the role of investigative reporting in Utah. Parsons' attorney Michael Patrick O'Brien says, "Mike Judd is a rising star in media law. It is a joy and privilege to work with him."

Congratulations to Michael Judd for a successful event and outstanding representation of Parsons' Media & First Amendment legal team.

Read the original here:
Parsons' Attorney Michael Judd Participates As Panelist At First Amendment Society Event - Mondaq News Alerts

From protests to conversations, Weber State University students decided to exercise their first amendment rights on campus in the spring semester of 2024.

On Jan. 17 a well-known transgender TikTok and social media personality, Dylan Mulvaney, visited Weber States Ogden campus for a Q&A with students as part of the WSUSA Speaker Series.

This was the first event where many Weber students were introduced to a relatively new club called the Young Americas Foundation. The organization became an official student-run club at the university in October 2023.

YAF is part of a leading national organization for young conservatives, according to their website.

Jared Caldwell, a WSU student and the chairman of Webers YAF chapter said that most members of their organization are activists.

At the Jan. 17 event, some YAF members protested by walking around with signs and starting conversations about transgenderism outside of the room where Mulvaney was speaking.

One of those signs read, $40,000 of your tuition for nonsense! The $40,000 dollars referred to how much it supposedly cost to book Mulvaney at a college in the 2023 and 2024 school year, according to a screenshot posted on the YAF instagram.

According to Tara Peris, the director of student involvement and leadership, it cost $31,500 to have Mulvaney speak at WSU. Peris said this amount came from student fees and was used to pay for Mulvaneys travel and transportation needs.

Another sign that was hung on the front of YAFs table in the Shepherd Union said, Transgenderism is B.S. Change my mind. This sign sprung a series of worries in the LGBTQ+ community on campus.

During an interview with The Signpost at the YAF table, a student asked Caldwell why he wrote the words, Transgenderism is B.S. Change my mind, on the sign.

Essentially, part of its because Im limited on space as well. I cant put transgenderism is a load of rubbish, its complete nonsense or anything. Its hard enough to do the sign. Thats going to make it a lot harder, Caldwell said in response to the question. So I decided to do B.S. because I thought, thatll maybe get some people to want to come talk to me and really see, okay, why do you think this is B.S. or whatever.

Caldwell also stated in the interview that he wanted to take a stance on his beliefs in regards to people who are transgender.

Axel Brown, a WSU freshman who is an openly bisexual man, said that he felt like YAFs signs and protests targeted the LGBTQ+ community on campus.

Brown also inquired about the wording YAF members used on their Jan. 19 Instagram post o regarding the event where Mulvaney spoke.

This past Wednesday on our campus was when the famous trans activist, TikToker Dylan Mulvaney came to our campus to spread the moronic, Trans agenda and we came prepared to spread the word to stand against it, and spread truth, The Instagram post said. I had some great conversations and my members did too. Plus we made these people realize that theyll get push back for spreading their twisted agenda. God bless you all who participated with us the other day.

Caldwell stated that WSU students who are executives for the club all have access to and run the Instagram account.

I think its absolutely atrocious, and I think its ridiculous, especially in todays age, where a lot of trans peoples identities have been attacked, Brown said. Especially with laws and everything lately, for this group to be able to do this, its mind-blowing to me that the school wont do anything about it.

Brown said that he emailed the dean of WSU about his concerns regarding the chapter and the dean sent him to the Office of Equal Opportunity.

According to an email provided by Brown, the Office of Equal Opportunity told him, The university has reviewed these signs, along with the information provided thus far, and it has been determined that the line between freedom of speech and harassment, discrimination or other prohibited speech has not been crossed at this time.

The Office of Equal Opportunity said in that email more information could be found on the universitys freedom of speech website.

Bryan Magaa, WSUs public relations director, said that there have been several incidents in the 2023-24 school year that have caused people to reflect on freedom of speech.

Magaa also stated that Weber State is a public university and organizations both on and off campus can secure a space in the Shepherd Union building.

Last year, Weber State launched the Campus Climate Team to help address things that affect our campus community, whether positively or negatively, Magaa said. In the months since, the CCT found freedom of speech to be a recurring theme.

Brown is not the only one who has concerns about the club and what they talk about in both the Shepherd Union and on their Instagram page.

WSU students Katelyn Ouzts and Sylvia Martinez also reported the club to the Office of Equal Opportunity Martinez showed The Signpost her email from the OEO regarding her report made to the office.

Ouzts said the two reported YAF because they felt the club was spreading hate speech about the LGBTQ+ community on campus. Ouzts sent The Signpost a screenshot of the Instagram post created on Jan. 19, which shows the poster Caldwell created that said, Transgenderism is B.S. Change my mind. Ouzts felt that YAFs poster at the Mulvaney event table was cruel and harmful to the community.

Ouzts stated that WSU answered back with the same response that Brown got, saying that YAF was not violating any policies and that the club was entitled to their freedom of speech.

During the interview with Caldwell, The Signpost asked him how he felt about people not feeling safe with the club on campus and how the club was reported because of these feelings.

I think people need to just grow up, honestly. You see me here. Everybody sees me here. Im not confrontational. Im not angry. I dont yell or anything because that doesnt solve anything. Plus, it makes me look bad, Caldwell said in response to the question.

Caldwell claims he has been yelled at before when he was recruiting for the chapter, but most of the time he said people are calm while having a conversation with him.

Im trying to approach as many different students as possible. Im not trying to just approach all the students who look more conservative or right wing or whatever. Even people who are ardent leftists, Ive talked to some of them, too, Caldwell said.

Becky Stromberg, the student engagement coordinator with the Walker Institute of Politics & Public Service, is the advisor for the YAF club and stated the club abides by the universitys freedom of speech policy.

We expect all students to treat everyone with respect and have civil conversations with all students that they come in contact with, Stromberg said.

On April 11 at 6 p.m., students came together to protest at an event held by YAF in Lindquist Hall. The event addressed abortion and pro-life activist Anna Strasburg was the guest speaker.

Protestors said the point of the silent protest was to promote inclusivity on campus by showing that students have a voice, even in situations where they feel like they dont. Around 40 people protested the event by showing up with pro-choice and LGBTQ+ equality signs.

Brown said the students who planned the protest wanted it to be silent to show Strasburg respect while she gave her speech.

Although some students protested in support of womens rights, the LGBTQ+ community or even against YAF, many students protested in demand of respect.

People have said that theyve felt uncomfortable because of [YAF]. Thats not OK. Ouzts said.

WSU freshman and event protestor Tess Johnsons opinion coincides with Ouzts.

Everyone has a right to their own views as long as those are expressed respectfully. But what theyre doing is not respectful, and thats where I have an issue, Johnson said. Im glad that I was able to be a part of this to share my voice in a respectful way to show how it should be done.

After Strasburg gave her official speech for the event, she thanked the protestors for coming and proceeded to engage in a nearly hour long conversation with them.

WSU students are not alone in their worries about YAF. Students at the University of Utah have also shown representation of their first amendment rights regarding an event in November 2023 at the college.

Protests were made in regards to the U of Us YAF chapter when the club showed the movie Damaged during an event they were holding.

According to the YAFs press release, the protestors shouted down the event, and members of the YAF group were asked by police to leave. The press release did not say why the police asked those YAF members to leave the event.

Afterwards, the chapter got Mountain States Legal Foundation involved and the U of U disbanded the organization of student protesters, saying that they were heckling the screening of Damaged.

According to that press release, some students were referred to prosecution because they interfered with the screening.

The YAF chapter at the U of U did have a re-screening of Damaged that same month, with American activist Chloe Cole as a host.

Students at WSU are most concerned about YAF creating an environment on campus filled with hate speech. These students feel that this kind of hate speech should not be allowed on campus.

According to Amanda Nordstrom, who is a program officer in the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression campus rights advocacy department, hate speech is a protected form of speech in the first amendment.

The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression is an organization built to help answer questions from students, faculty, alumni, administrators, reporters, supporters and free speech advocates.

The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression mission statement says the organization helps to defend and sustain the individual rights of all Americans to free speech and free thoughtthe most essential qualities of liberty.

According to Nordstrom, hate speech cant be legally defined because what is offensive to one person, might not be offensive to another.

So the First Amendment protects speech on campus unless it falls into a narrow category of unprotected speech, Nordstrom said. And theres only three categories that fall into that, or only three categories for that.

Nordstrom said the first category lies within the lines of speaker incitement to imminent lawless action.

The second category aligns with true threats, which is the kind of speech that threatens bodily harm. Nordstrom said that this kind of threat is when someone might do something to a person, like attack them.

That last category falls along the lines of speech that causes an immediate breach of the peace. Nordstrom said this might include fighting words.

When it comes to social media, first amendment rights are just as present as they are in person.

Students do have the right to express themselves online and use their free speech rights to make posts that might be offensive or make posts that might bother someone else, Nordstrom said. But then other students are also just as free to make those posts back.

Nordstrom said it can be hard for some people to understand and even come to terms with the first amendment because of how the law protects hate speech.

Magaa talked about how the Shepherd Union is a place where various organizations have events, tables and displays present. This area is a place where the first amendment is commonly utilized and seen by students and staff.

Like any large community, Weber State is home to people from various backgrounds, in all stages of life, who hold an array of beliefs, Magaa said. As such, free speech continues to be a prevailing topic on campus, and its important for the university to reiterate the responsibilities and complexities that come along with it. The Signpost reporter and copyeditor Gracie Stephenson contributed to this story.

Link:
Weber State University students using their first amendment rights - The Signpost

Italian Sons & Daughters of America v. City of Pittsburgh, decided yesterday by the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court (Judge Patricia A. Mccullough, joined by Judges Rene Cohn Jubelirer, Christine Fizzano Cannon, Ellen Ceisler, Lori A. Dumas, and Stacy Wallace, and with Judge Michael H. Wojcik concurring in the result), reversed a trial court's decision approving of Pittsburgh's removal of a Columbus statue from a public park. The trial court had held that the removal didn't violate the First Amendment, because monuments permanently erected in a park were "government speech," but the Commonwealth Court concluded that the removal did potentially violate state law:

Here, in its First Amended Complaint, ISDA does not challenge Mayor Peduto's or the Art Commission's actions on First Amendment grounds; nor does ISDA contest that the placement of the Statue in Schenley Park constitutes government speech that the City otherwise may regulate, change, or remove as it sees fit. Thus, ISDA does not argue that government speech principles are inapplicable. Rather, ISDA argues that Mayor Peduto and the Art Commission, in taking action to remove the Statue, did not comply with applicable provisions of the Charter and Code, violated ISDA's rights to due process, violated public trust principles, and breached a contract entered into between the City and ISDA's putative predecessor, the Sons of Columbus.

In issuing its decision, the trial court did not make any findings of fact and did not rule on any of Appellees' expressly pleaded preliminary objections, including the objection to ISDA's standing. Instead, the trial court broadly concluded that, because the Statue constitutes government speech, ISDA cannot, as a matter of law, plead a viable claim because the City is free to do with the Statue as it pleases, notwithstanding any local or state-wide legislation or other restrictions to the contrary [on the view that] "Local ordinances and state laws cannot be used to restrict future government's speech rights." .

[But a]lthough a government generally may determine those views that it will espouse by way of its own speech, it nevertheless may not do so in violation of applicable "law, regulation, or practice." The fact that monuments or pieces of art constitute "government speech" only protects the government from certain First Amendment challenges. It does not, as the trial court here concluded, give government "free reign" to act as it pleases in defiance of the law.

The trial court below did not make any findings or rulings regarding whether Appellees' actions in seeking to remove the Statue from Schenley Park violated the Charter, the Code, or the Ordinance. It instead dismissed ISDA's claims on the ground that such procedural irregularities did not matter in light of Summum. The trial court further declined to make any findings or rulings regarding whether the Art Commission's administrative proceedings were constitutionally adequate or whether ISDA had standing to bring this lawsuit in the first place. The trial court instead cast ISDA's claims as "procedural arguments at best" and did not analyze them. The trial court further explained that, even if ISDA is correct and Appellees violated the Charter, Code, and/or Ordinance in pursuing the Statue's removal, the new mayor's administration is still free to comply, if it wishes to do so. Id. In any event, according to the trial court, ISDA's claims against Appellees are now moot, and the new mayor's administration has effectively been granted a "do over."

[W]e simply cannot agree with the trial court's conclusions that (1) the Statue's status as government speech renders Appellees' actions per se valid, and (2) ISDA's claims are irrelevant procedural quibbles now mooted by the new mayor's ability to comply with the law if he so chooses. We accordingly reverse the trial court's order dismissing the First Amended Complaint based on the government speech doctrine and remand for further factfinding and decision, as appropriate, on Appellees' remaining preliminary objections.

Nonetheless, the court upheld the trial judge's decision not to recuse himself:

[In one of the hearings], and in partial reliance on James W. Loewen's book Lies My Teacher Told Me,the trial court judge discussed at length his views on, inter alia, historiography, freedom of expression, Christopher Columbus, the post-Civil-War South, and the City's role in leading the nation on the issue of statue removal.

{Specifically, the trial court explained:

History is often said to be written by the "winners[,"] and our understanding of it as a nation tends to evolve over time as research reveals new understandings and our cultural norms change. Undoubtedly, history as taught to most in the United States has been from a nationalistic and [E]urocentric perspective. Certainly, our national understanding of history is evolving today as evidenced by the statue removal movement occurring all over the United States with respect to Confederate and Union generals, [p]residents, explorers like Christopher Columbus, civil leaders, and here in Pittsburgh, past cultural icons like composer Stephen Foster. My father, a career high school history teacher and lifelong reader of history, taught me at an early age that the commissioning of Confederate general[ ] statues in the Jim Crow [S]outh was part of the "Lost Cause" response to Reconstruction efforts and often [was] intended as [a] symbol of white supremacy, while the federal government's commissioning of military bases [ ] and battleships commemorating the Confederacy and the placement of Confederate figures in the halls of Congress were at least by some[ ] motivated by an intent to heal the nation. Recently, in July [ ] 2020, Congress voted to remove those same figures from the House of Representatives as our understanding of history has evolved and the statues are no longer deemed appropriate in our contemporary nation trying to heal the issue of racial divide, ultimately inflamed by the killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis.

Open[-]mindedness as a community requires that we listen to each other and weigh the concerns expressed collectively with the sincere intent of trying to understand all sides of an issue. We must also be mindful that freedom of expression can be a double-edged sword. The fate of the Christopher Columbus statue should be determined after all concerns are fully expressed and heard with an intent to reach a common ground that reflects Pittsburgh and its pride in being a diverse and welcoming community. However, this must be done while recognizing the good and bad that comes with statues depicting historical figures. While acknowledging that historical figures are people and necessarily come with heroic qualities along with character flaws, nonetheless, racism, slavery and prejudice must always be condemned and rejected by our city. Discrimination has and continues to exist. Indigenous people and the immigrants who followed have all unfortunately shared that experience, [ ] which should [not] be acceptable to a community striving for better. With this common understanding, I am asking that we strive to reach a consensus in good faith. It is my belief that through conciliation, Pittsburgh will lead the nation on this issue of statue removal vis a vis history and evolving community historical understanding.}

There is a presumption that Commonwealth judges are "honorable, fair and competent," and, when confronted with a recusal request, are competent to determine whether they can rule "in an impartial manner, free of personal bias or interest in the outcome." Our Supreme Court also has recognized that,

[w]hile the mediation of courts is based upon the principle of judicial impartiality, disinterestedness, and fairness pervading the whole system of judicature, so that courts may as near as possible be above suspicion, there is, on the other side, an important issue at stake: that is, that causes may not be unfairly prejudiced, unduly delayed, or discontent created through unfounded charges of prejudice or unfairness made against the judge in the trial of a cause. If the judge feels that he can hear and dispose of the case fairly and without prejudice, his decision will be final unless there is an abuse of discretion. This must be so for the security of the bench and the successful administration of justice. Otherwise, unfounded and ofttimes malicious charges made during the trial by bold and unscrupulous advocates might be fatal to a cause, or litigation might be unfairly and improperly held up awaiting the decision of such a question or the assignment of another judge to try the case. If lightly countenanced, such practice might be resorted to, thereby tending to discredit the judicial system. The conscience of the judge alone is brought in question; he should, as far as possible, avoid any feelings of unfairness or hostility to the litigants in a case.

Here, ISDA argues that the trial court judge should have recused himself from presiding over this case because the extensive commentary in the Order created an appearance of impartiality, bias, and impropriety. More specifically, ISDA argues that the trial court judge's interpretations of his father's teaching career, the Lost Cause of the Confederacy, the Jim Crow South, ethnic discrimination, and the City's exemplary future in leading the nation in statue removal injected extraneous and irrelevant issues into a lawsuit involving straightforward claims asserting that Appellees did not comply with the Charter, Code, and Ordinance. ISDA therefore argues that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the Recusal Motion.

We generally agree with ISDA that the personal commentary in the trial court's October 30, 2020 Order is irrelevant and extraneous and does not inform the legal analysis of the claims asserted in the First Amended Complaint.

We nevertheless cannot conclude that the trial court's denial of the Recusal Motion constituted a clear abuse of discretion. To the extent that ISDA claims that the personal nature and irrelevance of the commentary indicates bias, it is the very irrelevance of the bulk of the trial court's order that requires affirmance on this issue. The issues in this case center on the legislative status of the Ordinance, the procedures in the Charter and Code, if any, that are applicable to public monument removal, and ISDA's standing to bring this lawsuit. The trial court has yet to rule on any of those issues.

The personal opinions the trial court judge has expressed on subjects immaterial to their resolution do not themselves constitute evidence that, as to the disposition of the actual issues at hand, he will be biased, prejudiced, or unfair to a degree that raises substantial doubt as to his ability to preside impartially. Without such evidence, we must defer to the trial court judge's own self-assessment that he can, and we trust will, preside over the resolution of this matter in an impartial and judicious manner. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of the Recusal Motion.

More here:
Pennsylvania Court Lets Suit Over Removal of Columbus Statue Go Forward - Reason